Muneshwar Prasad and Another vs The State of Bihar

P.K. Sinha, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and for the State have been heard.

Petitioners have filed this application u/s 482 or the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire prosecution arising out of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 32/89, as well the impugned order dated 8.1.1996 under which cognizance for offence had been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Sections 147, 448, 426, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners and three others.

The only point that has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the cognizance of offence is bad in view of provision u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the cognizance of offence has been taken much beyond the period prescribed under law.

It has been submitted that after investigation the police had submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 4.5.1989, well within the period of limitation. However, it appears from the impugned order that cognizance of offence was taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide order dated 8.1.1996 under Sections 147, 448, 426, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the Court of Shri N.N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Patna for disposal.

The offences under which the cognizance of offence has been taken are punishable for two years one year three months and one year, and one year respectively. The maximum period of punishment is two years which is u/s 147 of the I.P.C. u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance of such offences is barred beyond three years. Obviously the cognizance of the offence in this case has been taken much beyond the period of limitation had expired.

From the impugned order it is also clear that the learned Magistrate also did not extend the period of limitation after considering the matter u/s 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore, in view of this, the cognizance of offence by the impugned order is not legal.

In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.1.1996 is hereby quashed.

It will appear that cognizance of offence was taken against these two Petitioners and three other accused persons. Since the case of those three accused persons is similarly situated, hence, the impugned order shall stand quashed against them also.